Starring Leelee Sobieski, Jaime Kennedy and Denise Richards this movie is about a NYU film student who yearns for a job in Hollywood but the best job she gets is an editor at a porn studio. Released in summer 2010 it had a very limited release it seems looking at its total of $6,783.00. What is that 1 showing in one theater??

Anyway it had a few funny scenes and as you could imagine it plays up all manner of vernacular, innuendo and sight gags. I was more than a bit surprised to see Jaime flash his, um, deflated male organ around. When he bared his ass that was normal I thought for Jaime but his penis??

I had wondered what Denise Richards had been doing with all the Charlie Sheen news going on and that's how I came upon this in her IMDB. I've not seen her in her new cable show Mountain State but I hope that is regular work for her if the best she can land is projects like Finding Bliss.

Also, the continued obvious disconnect between the dialogue and the actors' mouthes in a lot of places is distracting.

Click to expand...

I've seen a lot worse--considering the Italian practice at the time of recording all dialogue non-synchronous, the Leone films are not a bad job of dubbing (especially since so many of the actors were speaking different languages on set). Still, it's nothing near the synchronized dialogue we've grown accustomed to in the US.

44. Invictus (B+)45. Unstoppable (C+)46. Knight and Day (B-)

Invictus: This turned out to be surprisingly good (knowing Clint Eastwood directed, I shouldn't have doubted it would be). It's sold as a sports movie (about rugby), but it's really about Nelson Mandella. Rugby just provides for greater insight into his character. It's certainly not the key to the whole affair, because after the movie ended, I still couldn't tell you a single thing about the rules of rugby. Both Freeman and Damon are great, with stronger accents from both than I had expected. The local performers are similarily good. My only complaints would be the songs used in the movie--they're too heavy-handed for my tastes--and the tour scene when Damon's character visits Mandella's jail sell. Seeing the cell is powerful enough--we don't need to see Damon's imagined flashback of Mandella there.

Unstoppable: This is a perfectly serviceable thriller, but never more than exceptional. It suffers from the use of the best equipped local news channel, frankly, ever, as a way to dump exposition on the audience. The action is pretty good, but it's not the deepest movie ever. Average, but watchable. Chris Pine is certainly shaping up to be quite a leading man.

Knight and Day: The reviews for this were a little harsh, I think. At times, it can be a little serious for its own good (actually, anytime the movie takes itself seriously it is too serious), but, luckily, the absurd action is mostly played for laughs. The point-of-view montages where Diaz's character is drugged are inspired. The movie isn't aided by rather dodgy visual effects work for a feature, but Diaz and especially Cruise pull it all together with strong performances (she may not have aged well, and he might be crazy, but they work together here). It's not a masterpiece, but it's not a bad way to spend an evening.

The thing I liked most about Invictus was Freeman's performance - well, obviously Freeman's amazing, but doing Mandela had him break out of his usual acting style for the first time in a while. Not just the accent, but his diction, etc. is completely different.

Got a used copy of this for cheap a few weeks ago, finally got around to watchin' it. I bought it 'cause I like Edward Norton, and he plays twins in this one. One is a college professor, the other a pot dealer, both smart in their own ways. Tim Blake Nelson (who also wrote & directed the movie) plays the best buddy of the drug dealer. Keri Russell is the love interest, Susan Sarandon is the mom & Richard Dreyfuss is a criminal kingpin in Oklahoma.

So, yeah...good cast.

But the movie is really kind of lame, and I didn't like it much at all. There were a few good laughs in it, but I should have known better than to watch a pothead movie...

The thing I liked most about Invictus was Freeman's performance - well, obviously Freeman's amazing, but doing Mandela had him break out of his usual acting style for the first time in a while. Not just the accent, but his diction, etc. is completely different.

Click to expand...

Definitely, I agree. It was nice to see him break out of the mold set for him by his performance in The Shawshank Redemption.

47. Robin Hood (B+)

Robin Hood: My reaction to the trailers was something along the lines of, "why do we need another one of these movies again?" Well, maybe we didn't need another version of the Robin Hood myth, but this is a pretty damn good one that departs from the usual way in a few ways (Robin is less light on his feet than he is a physical fighter, which makes sense given Crowe; Richard is killed rather than captured). People might complain that it departs from history, but since Robin Hood is fantasy anyways, I don't mind. I kind of hope we get a sequel, even if it would probably be the "more of the same" movie that I feared this would be. This is an origin story (a fact that was oddly neglected by the previews) not the usual Robin Hood narrative. Ridley Scott's attention to visual detail was, as always, excellent. And I don't know what was added in the extra 15 minutes that are in the Director's Cut I saw, because it all felt essential to me.

To commemorate the passing of Dame Elizabeth Taylor, I set aside the evening to watch what is generally regarded as her last great film role (and which earned her her second Oscar in 1966).

Adapted from a stage play, much like the Long Day's Journey Into Night film from the same era that I reviewed at the end of last year, it's set almost entirely in and around a house, and has only four characters (plus one super-minor other speaking part). These can be difficult to make work in film, but Mike Nichols, in his first directing gig, pulls it off. And unlike the aforementioned LDJIN (which I liked, mind you), it's a much more reasonable length. Taylor and Richard Burton are the leads, and they spend the whole film tearing at each other with remarkable ferocity, occasionally turning their guns on the hapless couple that stumbles into their house and inexplicably doesn't run screaming within the first two minutes. George Segal and Sandy Dennis (who also won the Oscar) are very good too, but it's hard to compete with the leads.

At least Sucker Punch didn't suck. Went up to Plano for a free screenin' tonight, got a free miniposter out of the deal, too.

Click to expand...

So, Whiteout for you was that bad? It's in my queue working it's way up. Someone told me it reminded them of an attempt at an X-Files episode, a poor attempt. Nonetheless I like Kate and am going to watch this.

The third of the Sergio Leone "Man With No Name" films, and clearly the budget available increased about forty-fold between movie 2 and movie 3, because whereas the first two were set in ruined towns inhabited seemingly only by rival gangs of cowboys, now we have a sprawling Civil War epic (which puts a timestamp on the films for the first time; though Clint only acquires his famous poncho at the end of this, so is this a prequel to the others? The dude must have a terrible gambling habit, because he seems to lose huge sums of money between films) with thousands of extras.

Much like the second film, I found this minimized some of the strengths of the first one. Eastwood's probably more of a presence here than in the previous one, but there's still plenty of time where he's only minimally there; Eli Wallach's Tuco isn't nearly as interesting to watch. And where the first one was admirably stripped-down, this likewise makes some stabs at a more serious tone, but it lacks follow-through (though there are some genuinely good moments). Eastwood's character is noticeably less invincible here than in previous films.

Continuing my little project of checking out old Best Picture winners; this was 1958's. A spectacular success in its day (it won 9 competition Oscars, breaking Gone With The Wind's record at the time; though notably, it's one of the few winners to have no acting nominations), it marked the beginning of a ten-year period (1958-1968) that could be called the golden age of the musical, where five of the ten BP winners in that era were musicals. West Side Story, My Fair Lady, and The Sound of Music are all well-remembered to this day. Gigi and Oliver! are somewhat more obscure, particularly the former, since it's not based on a famous Charles Dickens novel.

I debated how to grade this one, from B- to B+, because I actually quite enjoyed watching it, but I decided that quite a bit of the enjoyment came from the film's status as a cultural curio, not because of any particular inherent quality. Mainly, I find it fascinating to consider how different 1950s society was in terms of keeping sex out of the public discourse that you could have a jaunty musical number called "Thank Heaven for Little Girls" and nobody would think it was kind of creepy. The film does have a nice undercurrent of wit to it, but it's dramatically inert; there's not really much conflict, and no villain, which is disappointing in a musical as they usually have the best songs. And the songs, apart from the aforementioned "Thank Heaven", aren't particularly memorable. The production looks amazing, I must say, making great use of numerous Parisian locations. Maurice Chevalier's performance as the ribald old uncle is quite memorable.

I borrowed a used copy of the sequel from my sister two weeks ago, and finally got around to watchin' it today.

I haven't watched the first one in years & years, but it wasn't really necessary for this movie, anyway. There are references to the first movie, of course, and a cameo by Charlie Sheen, but it stands on its own more than bein' a sequel. Michael Douglas's Gordan Gecko is surrounded by a whole new set of characters, so its like his continued adventures...

Pretty pathetic. Every character in the movie except Eastwood's was a stupid jackass caricature. Eastwood was great as a calm, confident, quiet, and morally upright rebel of immense quick draw talent, but he was surrounded by morons. Also, the story was a bore, and the acting (again, aside from Eastwood) was infuriatingly melodramatic and/or over-the-top. How anyone can think this has aged well is beyond me.

The worst thing about this movie was the dubbing. I don't know why they had to make movies like this. They should have just let the actors talk their native language with subtitles while Eastwood spoke English (like a Tarantino movie would). The cheesy dubbing made it like one of those goofy kung fu movies. As I watched it, I felt like I should be listening to some MST3K-style commentary.

I guess this dubbing over everyone except the guy who naturally speaks English was just the way movies were made back then and it couldn't be helped. That's a shame, because it pretty much ruined the movie for me. Well, that and the fact that Eastwood's character was the only one I could care about and take seriously. The last scene was quite exciting and fun...the rest, not so much. I really, really hope the sequel is better, because watching another movie as lame as this one would be a huge waste of time.

The only good things in the movie in the movie were Eastwood's deadpan performance, how hilariously fast he shoots every time he kills people, and the quirky music. I wish I knew what the vocalists were yelling every time they chanted together. It was so funny and cool. The repeating flute motif was a hoot too.

My friend wanted to see this, so I went along - the first time in years I can recall seeing a movie on the initiative of someone other than myself.

This had a ton of distribution problems because of a spat between the producers and distributors, and ultimately didn't make much money. It's too bad, because it's pretty good. It's very funny as a comedy, and surprisingly affecting in places too. The relationship between Jim Carrey and Ewan Macgregor's characters is a lot more real-seeming than most comedies. It's also remarkably frank with gay sexuality, moreso even than acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain.